DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the application and claims filed 10/06/2022. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the priority benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/253,751. The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/253,751, filed 10/08/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because Figures 1-5 include letters which do not measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see, e.g., most of the lowercase and subscript characters in FIGs. 1-4 and most of the characters in FIG. 5). See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because some of the characters in Figure 5 (i.e., text/labels and graphs) are too light to permit adequate reproduction. See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(l): All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Many of the equations, functions and mathematical symbols included in the specification are not legible.
The list of examples of illegible text in equations, functions and mathematical symbols provided herein is not exhaustive. Applicant’s lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
For example, equations, functions and mathematical symbols in paragraphs 26, 29, 33 and 36 are illegible.
The examiner notes that similar illegibility issues exist in the corresponding paragraphs in applicant’s published application: Najaf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0127069 A1, hereinafter “Najaf pub”). See, e.g., paragraphs 26, 29, 38 and 41 of the Najaf pub, which read, in the relevant portions: “? indicates text missing or illegible when filed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology such as “said” and uses phrases which can be implied, namely “The output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation. In a preferred embodiment, each convolutional and fully connected layer is equipped with input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data. In a particularly preferred embodiment, each processing element can access the weight buffer that holds the weight vector.” in the last 3 sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1 and 6 both recite “each said filter in said convolutional layers” (see, line 5 of claim 1 and line 6 of claim 6). Applicant previously introduced “convolutional and fully connected layers, said convolutional layer including a plurality of filters” in these claims (see, lines 3-4 of claim 1 and lines 4-5 of claim 6). For clarity and consistency, if supported by the original specification, examiner suggests amending recitations of “each said filter in said convolutional layers” to read “each filter in said plurality of filters in said convolutional layers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 8 recite “each said processing element” (see, line 1 of these claims). Applicant previously introduced “2D array of processing elements” in base claims 1 and 6 (see, line 3 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 6). For clarity and consistency, if supported by the original specification, examiner suggests amending recitations of “each said processing element” to read “each processing element in said array of processing elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10, which each depend directly or indirectly from claims 3 and 8, respectively, are objected to based on their respective dependencies from claims 3 and 8.
Claims 4 and 9 both recite “the input/out buffers” (see, line 2 of these claims). As applicant previously introduced “input/output buffers” in claims 2 and 7, which claims 4 and 9 depend indirectly from, it appears that the recitations of “the input/out buffers” are typographical errors and should read ““the input/output buffers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 10, which depend directly from claims 4 and 9, respectively, are objected to based on their respective dependencies from claims 4 and 9.
The preamble of claim 7 recites “7The method in claim 6”, and includes a typographical error (i.e., an extraneous “7” before “The”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10, which each depend directly or indirectly from claim 7, are objected to based on their respective dependencies from claim 7.
Also, claims 2-5 and 7-10, which each depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 6, respectively, are objected to based on their respective dependencies from claims 1 and 6.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitations are:
means for forwarding fetched values in the input/out1 buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner in claims 4 and 9.
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 9 and the above-noted three-prong test, the claim limitation uses the term “means”, for forwarding fetched values is functional language, and there is no recitation of sufficient structure to perform the forwarding.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Regarding the means for forwarding fetched values in the input/out[put] buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner recited in claims 4 and 9:
With reference to FIG. 3, paragraphs 24 and 36 recite “each layer is equipped with input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data. Each PE can access the weight buffer that holds the weight vector. … the fetched values are forwarded through the PEs in a pipelined manner. PEs are equipped with a local scratchpad memory to hold the weights and partial results.” and “TaxoNN benefits from an optimized and pipelined architecture. Figure 3 shows the timing diagram of the training process composed of the forwarding phase followed by the error BP [back-propagation] and weight updating. … Leveraging this pipelining, TaxoNN performs an iteration of the BP”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Independent claims 1 and 6 both recite “said convolutional layer” (see, line 4 of claim 1 and line 5 of claim 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Applicant did not previously introduce any singular “convolutional layer” in these claims. Applicant previously introduced “both convolutional and fully connected layers” in these claims (see, lines 3-4 of claim 1 and lines 4-5 of claim 6). However, it is unclear whether the subsequent recitations of “said convolutional layer” refer to a particular one of the previously-introduced “convolutional … layers”, any one of the previously-introduced “convolutional … connected layers”, or to some other single, convolutional layer. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting the term “said convolutional layer” as any convolutional layer of the previously-introduced “convolutional … layers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 6 both recite “the input vector” and “the weight vector” (see, the last line of these claims). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims. Applicant did not previously introduce any “input vector” or “weight vector”, or vector of any kind, in these claims. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting the terms “the input vector” and “the weight vector” as any vector of input data values and any vector of weights. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 7 both recite “the input/output data” (see, line 2 of these claims). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Applicant did not previously introduce any singular “input/output data”, “input data” or “output data” in these claims, or their base claims, claims 1 and 6. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the examiner is interpreting “the input/output data” as any input data and/or output data. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-6 and 8-10, which each depend directly or indirectly from claims 2 and 7, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claims 2 and 7.
Also, claims 2-6 and 7-10, which each depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 6, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claims 1 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”). and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6 these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an accelerator, corresponding to an article of manufacture, and claim 6 is directed to an arithmetic method, corresponding to a process, which are both one of one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claims are directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claims recite mathematical concepts (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). Claims 1 and 6 both recite, inter alia, an accelerator:
wherein the output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xi is the input vector, wi is the weight vector2 and f denotes an activation function.
The above-noted wherein clause and weighted summation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical calculations/summation using the above-noted equation).
Under its BRI, in light of the specification, the weighted summation limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a weighted sum using values in input and weight vectors, as described in the specification in paragraph 24 (which repeats the above-noted equation and text).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI), cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then they fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § I. But for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “an accelerator” and “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements”), the limitations of claims 1 and 6, cover mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 6 do not recite any additional limitations or elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims only recite these additional elements: an accelerator comprising:
“A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements used in both convolutional and fully connected layers, said convolutional layer3 including a plurality of filters”, which are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the claims are directed to a generic computer performing mathematical functions (see, recitation of “the output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation”), and recites generic computer hardware (see, recitation of an “architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements”) used to perform and store arithmetic/mathematical calculation results.
In the context of claims 1 and 6, the accelerator comprising “A baseline architecture having … a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements used in both convolutional and fully connected layers” is considered to be mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (abstract idea).
The recitations in the preambles claims 1 and 6 of “An accelerator for training deep neural networks” (claim 1) and “training deep neural networks with an accelerator” (claim 6), are intended use language with no patentable weight because aside from these recitations in the preambles, no neural network, let alone any operations or steps for “training deep neural networks” are recited elsewhere in the claims or any of their respective dependent claims.
Regarding the “deep neural networks”, no details of the neural networks are recited and the networks are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. Aside from merely repeating the claim language (see, e.g., paragraphs 4, 14 and 16) and providing general examples and a general operating environment (see, e.g., paragraphs 5 and 10), applicant’s specification does not explicitly define nor provide details of the recited “deep neural networks”. Thus, the claimed “deep neural networks”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, could be constructed by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the input and weight vectors). The deep neural networks are recited at a high level of generality and therefore are being interpreted as performing mathematical calculations and operations on a generic computer.
Also, the additional limitation in claims 1 and 6 of “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements used in both convolutional and fully connected layers, said convolutional layer including a plurality of filters” recites a field of use exception that generally links a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical concept electronically (i.e., with the recited “accelerator” comprising “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements” recited in claims 1 and 6 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
This claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus, the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an accelerator device as depending from claim 1, and claim 7 is directed to a method as depending from claim 6, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 1 and 6 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prongs 1-2: The claims both recite “wherein each said convolutional and fully connected layer is equipped with input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data.” This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mathematical concept.
The recitation of “input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data” is adding insignificant extra-solution activities (amount to necessary data gathering and storage) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional limitation in claims 2 and 7 of “wherein each said convolutional and fully connected layer is equipped with input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data4” recites a field of use exception that generally links a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, this additional limitation in claims 2 and 7 do nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, claims 2 and 7 recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical concept electronically (i.e., with the recited “accelerator” comprising “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements” recited in base claims 1 and 6 and by using “input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data” recited in claims 2 and 7) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “input/output buffers that fetch/store the input/output data” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of these dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an accelerator device as depending from claim 2, and claim 8 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 2 and 7, and of base claims 1 and 6, are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prongs 1-2: The claims both recite “wherein each said processing element can access the weight buffer that holds the weight vector.” This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mathematical concept.
The recitation of “weight buffer that holds the weight vector” recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional limitation in claims 3 and 8 of “wherein each said processing element can access the weight buffer that holds the weight vector.” recites a field of use exception that generally links a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, this additional limitation in claims 3 and 8 do nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1-2 and 6-7. Accordingly, claims 3 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical concept electronically (i.e., with the recited “accelerator” comprising “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements” recited in base claims 1 and 6 and by using “each said processing element [that] can access the weight buffer that holds the weight vector” recited in claims 3 and 8) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Moreover, the “weight buffer that holds the weight vector” limitation discussed above recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of these dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an accelerator device as depending from claim 3, and claim 9 is directed to a method as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 3 and 8, of intervening claims 2 and 7, and of base claims 1 and 6, are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prongs 1-2: The claims both recite, using respective similar language, “further comprising means for forwarding fetched values in the input/out5 buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner.” This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mathematical concept.
The recitation of “forwarding fetched values in the input/out [sic – output] buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner” is adding insignificant extra-solution activities (amount to necessary data gathering and outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional limitation in claims 4 and 9 of “further comprising means for forwarding fetched values in the input/out buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner.” recites a field of use exception that generally links a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, this additional limitation in claims 4 and 9 do nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1-3 and 6-8. Accordingly, claims 4 and 9 recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical concept electronically (i.e., with the recited “accelerator” comprising “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements” recited in base claims 1 and 6 and by “forwarding fetched values in input/out buffers through said processing elements” recited in claims 4 and 9) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “forwarding fetched values in the input/out [sic – output] buffers through said processing elements in a pipelined manner” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of these dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an accelerator device as depending from claim 4, and claim 10 is directed to a method as depending from claim 9, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 4 and 9, of intervening claims 2-3 and 7-8, and of base claims 1 and 6, are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prongs 1-2: The claims both recite, “wherein said processing elements are equipped with a local scratchpad memory to hold weights and partial results.” This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mathematical concept.
The recitation of “memory to hold weights and partial results” recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the additional limitation in claims 5 and 10 of “wherein said processing elements are equipped with a local scratchpad memory to hold weights and partial results.” recites a field of use exception that generally links a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, this additional limitation in claims 5 and 10 do nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1-3 and 6-8. Accordingly, claims 5 and 10 recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the mathematical concept electronically (i.e., with the recited “accelerator” comprising “A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements” recited in base claims 1 and 6 and by using “processing elements … equipped with a local scratchpad memory” recited in claims 5 and 10) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Also, as explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Moreover, the “memory to hold weights and partial results” limitation discussed above recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of these dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature Li et al. ("CSCNN: Algorithm-hardware co-design for CNN accelerators using centrosymmetric filters." 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, March 2021, hereinafter “Li”) in view of Vantrease et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0236049 A1, hereinafter “Vantrease”).
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses the invention as claimed including an accelerator for training deep neural networks (see, e.g., Abstract, “Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are at the core of many state-of-the-art deep learning models … Training and deploying such CNN-based architectures … we propose a CSCNN accelerator that effectively exploits the structured computational reuse enabled by centrosymmetric filters” [i.e., an accelerator for training deep learning models/neural networks/CNNs]), comprising:
(1) A baseline architecture having an input buffer, a weight buffer, an output buffer, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements (see, e.g., FIG. 3 – depicting a baseline architecture including a 2D array of PEs/processing elements, “Control processor” [i.e., buffer controller], input buffer “IBUF”, output buffer “OBUF” and weight buffer “WBUF” and pages 613, “The CSCNN accelerator employs a PE array organized into a 2D mesh topology” [i.e., a 2D array of processing elements/PEs], 616, “Figure 3 shows the overall architecture of the CSCNN accelerator [i.e., a baseline architecture], which consists of the following main components: a PE array for computation, two buffers for input activations and output activations (IBUF and OBUF), a buffer for weights (WBUF), and a control processor (CP). The PE array consists of multiple PEs connected via simple interconnections. The CP controls the data and execution flow of all the modules.” [i.e., baseline architecture with input, weight and output buffers, a buffer controller, and a 2D array of processing elements/PEs]) used in both convolutional and fully connected layers, said convolutional layer6 including a plurality of filters (see, e.g., Abstract, “CSCNN uses centrosymmetric matrices as convolutional filters” and pages 613, “Centrosymmetric Filters A convolutional layer applies K 3-dimensional (RxSxC) filters to 3-dimensional (WxHxC) input feature maps (IFMaps) to create output feature maps (OFMaps).… In CSCNN models, the filters are centrosymmetric”, 615-616, “method is applied to all layers including FC layers and convolutional”, “spread the work across multiple PEs … dataflow of the accelerator and discuss how it supports FC layers” and 619, “Support for Fully-connected Layers In fully-connected (FC) layers” [i.e., the PEs used for convolutional/CNN layers including filters, and fully-connected/FC layers]);
(2) and wherein the output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xi is the input vector the input vector, wi is the weight vector7 (see, e.g., equation (1) – showing a weighted summation ∑ using weights Wij and pages 613, “The CSCNN PE contains a multiplier array that accepts a vector of non-zero input activations and a vector of non-zero weights [i.e., an input vector and a weight vector Wij] … The convolutional operation can be defined as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In CSCNN models, the filters are centrosymmetric across the RxS dimension. As shown in Figure 1, every weight shares the same value with the weight at its centrosymmetric position in each RxS filter” and 615, “centrosymmetric filters and can be applied to further reduce data and computation. … updating the tied weight gradient with the sum of the two gradients … is equivalent to updating it twice with the average sum in our implementation” [i.e., the output of each filter in the CNN/convolution layers is a weighted sum]).
Although Li substantially discloses the claimed invention and FIG. 4 of Li depicts an “activation function”, an input buffer “IBUF” with inputs, a weight buffer “WBUF” with “Weights” and an output buffer “OBUF” with “Output Activations”, Li does not explicitly teach output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xi is the input vector, wi is the weight vector and f denotes an activation function.
In the same field, analogous art Vantrease teaches output of each said filter in said convolutional layers is achieved by a weighted summation
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xi is the input vector, wi is the weight vector8 and f denotes an activation function (see, e.g., equation 1
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[i.e., compute weighted summation ∑/Sum with input vector xi and weight vector W1, paragraphs 18, “each PE in the intermediate layers may compute a sum of the element-weight products, and then generate an intermediate output by applying an activation function to the sum”, 33-34, “the PE 304b may generate a sum of the scaled outputs [i.e., scaled/weighted summation] based on the following equation:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”, “sum304b represents a sum generated by the PE 304b. The W1,xxi, may represent a scaling of a particular pixel value (e.g., x0) with the associated weight (e.g., W10) by a PE … each PE of the layer 304 may